Judge Shoots Down Samsung’s Jury Misconduct Claims

| News

U.S. Federal Judge Lucy Koh ruled Monday evening that there wasn't any jury misconduct in Apple and Samsung's patent infringement lawsuit. Samsung had accused jury foreman Velvin Hogan of intentionally withholding information about his relationship with partner company Seagate to get a spot on the jury.

Judge to Samsung: No do-over for youJudge to Samsung: No do-over for you

The ruling shoots down Samsung's hopes for a new trial in its mobile device patent infringement fight with Apple, according to Foss Patents. The jury found Samsung willfully infringed on a long list of Apple patents, while also ruling Apple wasn't infringing on Samsung's. Apple also won over US$1 billion in damages as part of the ruling.

Samsung accused Mr. Hogan of failing to reveal he had been sued by his former employer Seagate in 1993 to recover a $25,000 loan. Mr. Hogan filed bankruptcy after the lawsuit, but said he didn't disclose the information because he wasn't asked.

Samsung owns a 9.6 percent share in Seagate as part of what it called a "substantial strategic relationship." Samsung's legal team accused Mr. Hogan of intentionally withholding information about his earlier lawsuit so that he wouldn't be excused from and as a result the Jury wasn't able to return a fair verdict.

Apple denied having any knowledge of Mr. Hogan's relationship with Seagate, stating it hadn't "identified any Apple attorney or other member of the Apple litigation teams was aware that Mr. Hogan had been a party to lawsuits involving Seagate until after the conclusion of trial, when Samsung raised the matter in connection with its post-trial motions."

Apple's legal team went on to state that it didn't see any misconduct on Mr. Hogan's part, and that his involvement with Seagate was irrelevant.

Judge Koh's ruling is good news for Apple since it doesn't have to face starting over with a new trial that would no doubt run on for months. Samsung, however, lost out on its chance for a do-over where it could potentially win a more favorable ruling.

Neither company has commented on the ruling.

No Comments

Log-in to comment